Billy Corgan is a religious whacko

I was never a huge Smashing Pumpkins fan, but I could at least appreciate their music. It was angsty, raw, and very emotional. Lead singer and songwriter Billy Corgan obviously had some personal demons (which he attributes to being abused by his step mother as a child), but these usually channeled into moderately entertaining music. That, of course, was before he became born again and created the monstrosity that is Zwan. If you want to know how much God is on his mind now, take a gander at his Twitter.

If God is Love and Love is Truth than anything not born of Love or Truth is not born of God.

What the hell does that even mean?

Sometimes God is as simple as saying I AM. Love is only complex if you will not forgive

What is this, some fortune cookie caption contest? Lame dosn’t even begin to describe this man’s ‘poetry’. He was better when he was depressed.

Related posts

Comments (69)

raven

does that mean since my parents were not in love and not of “truth” or whatever when having conceived me, i’m going to hell? oh well. god doesn’t exist or he wouldn’t have created people that destroy his own animals, torture them and minds like mine to near suicide, and are money driven rotten pieces. because if i am supposedly not born of god then what am i? I’m not like those people. I’m not a hell spawn…. i’m not evil or mad. okay a little mad but i have good intentions. Or maybe god does exist and is the one who is making man dissipate because he realizes that he shouldn’t have created so much testosterone. nooo… i’m just happy to eat healthy so when i die i become part of the soil, and don’t add toxins into it.

You'restrangelystupid

Himangsu Sekhar Pal

IF GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE, THEN WHO CREATED GOD?
Earlier it was impossible for us to give any satisfactory answer to this question. But modern science, rather we should say that Einstein, has made it an easy task for us. And Stephen Hawking has provided us with the clue necessary for solving this riddle. Actually scientists in their infinite wisdom have already kept the ground well-prepared for us believers so that one day we can give a most plausible and logically consistent answer to this age-old question. Let me first quote from the book “A Brief History of Time” by Stephen Hawking:
“The idea of inflation could also explain why there is so much matter in the universe. There is something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero.”
Here the question stops. So the clue is this: if we can ultimately arrive at zero, then no further question will be raised, and there will be no infinite regression. What I intend to do here is something similar to that. I want to show that our God is a bunch of several zeroes, and that therefore no further question need be raised about His origin. And here comes Einstein with his special theory of relativity for giving us the necessary empirical support to our project.
God is a Being. Therefore God will have existence as well as essence. So I will have to show that both from the point of view of existence as well as from the point of view of essence God is zero. It is almost a common parlance that God is spaceless, timeless, changeless, immortal, and all-pervading. Here we are getting three zeroes; space is zero, time is zero, change is zero. But how to prove that if there is a God, then that God will be spaceless, timeless, and changeless? From special theory of relativity we come to know that for light both distance and time become unreal. For light even an infinite distance is infinitely contracted to zero. The volume of an infinite universe full of light only will be simply zero due to this property of light. A universe with zero volume is a spaceless universe. Again at the speed of light time totally stops. So a universe full of light only is a spaceless, timeless universe. But these are the properties of light only! How do we come to know that God is also having the same properties of light so that God can also be spaceless, timeless? Scientists have shown that if there is a God, then that God can only be light, and nothing else, and that therefore He will have all the properties of light. Here is the proof.
Scientists have shown that total energy of the universe is always zero. If total energy is zero, then total mass will also be zero due to energy-mass equivalence. Now if there is a God, then scientists have calculated the total energy and mass of the universe by taking into consideration the fact that there is also a God. In other words, if there is a God, then this total energy-mass calculation by the scientists is God-inclusive, not God-exclusive. This is due to two reasons. First of all, even if there is a God, they are not aware of the fact that there is a God. Secondly, they do not admit that there is a God. So, if there is a God, then they have not been able to keep that God aside before making this calculation, because they do not know that there is a God. They cannot say that they have kept Him aside and then made this calculation, because by saying that they will admit that there is a God. At most they can say that there is no God. But we are not going to accept that statement as the final verdict on God-issue, because we are disputing that statement. So the matter of the fact is this: if God is really there, then total mass and total energy of the universe including that God are both zero. Therefore mass and energy of God will also be zero. God is without any mass, without any energy. And Einstein has already shown that anything having zero rest-mass will have the speed of light. In other words, it will be light. So, if God is there, then God will also be light, and therefore He will be spaceless, timeless. So from the point of view of existence God is zero, because he is spaceless, timeless, without any mass, without any energy.
Now we will have to show that from the point of view of essence also God is zero. If there is only one being in the universe, and if there is no second being other than that being, then that being cannot have any such property as love, hate, cruelty, compassion, benevolence, etc. Let us say that God is cruel. Now to whom can He be cruel if there is no other being other than God Himself? So, if God is cruel, then is He cruel to Himself? Therefore if we say that God is all-loving, merciful, benevolent, etc., then we are also admitting that God is not alone, that there is another being co-eternal with God to whom He can show His love, benevolence, goodness, mercy, compassion, etc. If we say that God is all-loving, then we are also saying that this “all” is co-eternal with God. Thus we are admitting that God has not created the universe at all, and that therefore we need not have to revere Him, for the simple reason that He is not our creator!
It is usually said that God is good. But Bertrand Russell has shown that God cannot be good for the simple reason that if God is good, then there is a standard of goodness which is independent of God’s will. Therefore, if God is the ultimate Being, then that God cannot be good. But neither can He be evil. God is beyond good and evil. Like Hindu’s Brahma, a real God can only be nirguna, nirupadhik; without any name, without any quality. From the point of view of essence also, a real God is a zero. Mystics usually say that God is a no-thing. This is the real God, not the God of the scriptures.
So, why should there be any need for creation here, if God is existentially, as well as essentially, zero?
But if there is someone who is intelligent and clever enough, then he will not stop arguing here. He will point out to another infinite regression. If God is light, then He will no doubt be spaceless, timeless, etc. Therefore one infinite regression is thus arrested. But what about the second regression? How, and from whom, does light get its own peculiar properties by means of which we have successfully arrested the first regression? So, here is another infinite regression. But we need not have to worry much about this regression, because this problem has already been solved. A whole thing, by virtue of its being the whole thing, will have all the properties of spacelessness, timelessness, changelessness, deathlessness. It need not have to depend on any other external source for getting these properties. Thus no further infinite regression will be there.
H. S. Pal

Yoda

imaginedatyo

“he was better when he was depressed”. Wow, you’ve officially just landed yourself in the same plane as all the right-wing fundamentalists, as far as I am concerned Just because you think you are your “own god” doesn’t give you the right to take on the responsibility of telling others how they should be deciphering the meaning of existence. I mean, isn’t one of the reasons why your so against Christians to begin with? Ah, the modern “Atheist”. I seriously hope by now you are able to deal with people living their own lives, for your own well being.

Arthur

You know Billy Corgan is atheist right? Have you ever listened to Bullet with Butterfly Wings? Amazing song. The ending lines in particular stand out like a sore thumb “And I still believe that I cannot be saved”. No further discussion needed but please listen to the full song because it is very deeply entrenched with atheistic themes.

Candy b

I am no religious person and am a strong believer in atheism, but this post is fucking retarded. First of all, he’s an artist. He has no use to preach religion to people, but its something he keeps to himself. It affects nobody by saying he believes in god. He is not promoting religion, but simply saying he believes in god. Not even a religion was mentioned here. A person can believe in god yet not be religious. Don’t criticize what you can’t understand.

Matt

Arthur– any chance Billy is talking about being saved from something besides his own sin here? Many of Billy’s songs speak (or seem to speak) to drug addiction. And, believing you “can’t be saved” would infer that others were being saved. Just sayin’.